[rollei_list] Re: Large Format film availability
- From: "Austin Franklin" <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 14:16:33 -0400
Hi Eric,
I'd say hard drives (even if you burn two) would not be very archival. They
still have an MTBF that is pretty low, and they don't necessarily last well
over time even if unused.
I'm curious why you think this (meaning that a pair of hard drives would be
even remotely archival) and what info you base your comment on.
Regards,
Austin
> Hard drives used in pairs. No burnable media is in any way close to
> "reasonable" or archival.
>
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
> --
>
> On 5/1/08, Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Are there any media that offer "reasonable," if not archival,
> longevity for
> > digital files? Although I have some respect for posterity, in about 20
> > years I expect to have little or no involvement in it, anyway.
> >
> > Allen Zak
> >
> > On May 1, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Jeff Kelley wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I guarantee the claims are marketing hype. I worked for
> years at Sony as
> > an Application Engineer and Software Engineer during the
> beginning days of
> > CDROM. This was when the first 1X burners were tens of
> thousands of dollars
> > and the gold blanks were $25 to $35 EACH. They kept the blanks
> locked in a
> > metal cabinet & kept close tabs on them ;)
> > >
> > > I've had state of the art, lab quality CDs that were rated at
> 100 years +
> > die in less than 3 years. I've seen the same quality discs
> unreadable on a
> > second machine within seconds of burning them. And so on....
> > >
> > > CDROMS and DVD media are NOT archival backups. Period.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Eric Goldstein
> <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is inaccurate information. Those claims arr marketing hype.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric Goldstein
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/1/08, Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Those more expensive gold DVD's are supposed to be ok though.
> > > > > I'm getting those.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark William Rabiner
> > > > > markrabiner.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Rollei List
> > > > >
> > > > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > with 'subscribe'
> > > > > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> > > > >
> > > > > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > with
> > > > > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> > www.freelists.org
> > > > >
> > > > > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > > > > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Rollei List
> > > >
> > > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > 'subscribe'
> > > > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> > > >
> > > > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > > > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
www.freelists.org
> > >
> > > - Online, searchable archives are available at
> > > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> > >
> > >
> >
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
